|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 24 2013 21:43 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 20:40 Sub40APM wrote:On December 24 2013 19:11 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 09:32 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On December 24 2013 08:58 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:53 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:51 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:49 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:16 Crushinator wrote:
It is nice to have a vague and highly abstract concept like patriarchy to blame for everything. so what you should try to do is understand what it is and how it functions, to make it less vague. it's true that what most feminists talk about when they talk about the "patriarchy" is vague and useless, but it's also true that there actually is a patriarchy and that our entire social fabric is shot through with its insidious tentacles. I don't think anything exist in contemporary society that is worthy of he name patriarchy. then you are sadly mistaken. most likely, you just don't have any properly theoretical conception of what is meant by the term. the patriarchy is just part of our ideology. it is "pouvoir" in the foucauldian sense, it is not some concrete instutition which is the sort of stupid, obvious thing you look for and don't find, it is much more subtle than that. It absolutely exists. Don't let the voguish stupidity of the way most people use the term discount the idea itself. Yeah that is just a bunch of bullshit to me, sorry. If you don't believe the patriarchy exists, consider the examples shown in the rural areas of India, and under Taliban influenced areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. These countries are rife with 14 year olds being sold into marriage, girls schools being closed, straight up gender segregation, and regular terrorism for failing to comply with gender norms. I have not listed all of the systemic legal and cultural rules imposed on women. There are many more there. Can you not grok this concept? When you think of those examples, does a pattern of gender roles not emerge? Men make the rules. Men imposed the rules. And men do this to maintain control over women. Do you not see what is going on there? , which pretty much holds that even though women have equal rights in every way, are still somehow being opressed by some abstraction. What I am disputing is that patriarchy is a useful concept to describe any phenomenon in contemporary society. I would be curious to hear your explanation why despite being legally equal women seem to be underrepresented in a number of elite professions and why their incomes -- even for the same level of education -- stagnate. In terms of economics it would be preposterous to suggest that equally qualified workers would recieve different wages solely based on their gender. Businesses that choose to employ overpaid men in favor of underpaid women would go out of business in favor of businesses employing only the equally qualified cheap women. The greater demand for the cheap women would create an upwards pressure on wages for women and a downward pressure on the wages of men, resulting in equal pay in equilibirum. The explanation must lie in elsewhere, discrimination can't account for differences in wages. One obvious factor would be the fact that the cost of pregnancy and child rearing responsibility disproportionately lies with female workers, and employers pay part of this cost through maternity leave, decreased productivity and lack of flexibility. The fact that women get pregnant and men don't, and women are most often the primary care giver is atleast in part founded in biology, and only a limited number of policy options are available to correct this difference. For example forcing employers to give as much paternity leave as maternity leave, like in some scandinavian countries. Ecouraging fathers to take more of the child rearing responsibilities is a more difficult problem, and I feel that complete parity can never be achieved, though there certainly has been a move towards greater participation by fathers. For elite professions the disparity can be explained in terms of different inherent preferences and perhaps even abillity. Women on average have a greater preference to work with people, wheras men more often than women prefer to work with things. Furthermore, to achieve the very top of any profession requires something of a single minded preoccupation that one might call an obsession, and I think men are more prone to develop that, whereas women's preoccupaitons might on average be more varied. To support this assertion I offer the fact that autism spectrum syndromes, partly characterized by obsessions for certain patterns, are much more prevalent in men, and a popular explanation for this is the ''male brain hypothesis". Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but I believe this can atleast offer some insight into the differences between men and women in elite professions. Even if I am wrong about some of these things, I still don't believe patriarchy is a useful concept that does offer insight. Perhaps you would be so kind as to offer explanations in terms of patriarhy, so we may decide whether this offers some superior or additional insight.
lol Do you believe in that ? Wage has nothing to do with productivity, women are on average paid less because it is a social convention to do so. Pregnancy is the excuse. The proof is that the disparities in salaries are way less for younger generations.
|
On December 24 2013 22:53 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 21:43 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 20:40 Sub40APM wrote:On December 24 2013 19:11 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 09:32 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On December 24 2013 08:58 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:53 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:51 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:49 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:16 Crushinator wrote:
It is nice to have a vague and highly abstract concept like patriarchy to blame for everything. so what you should try to do is understand what it is and how it functions, to make it less vague. it's true that what most feminists talk about when they talk about the "patriarchy" is vague and useless, but it's also true that there actually is a patriarchy and that our entire social fabric is shot through with its insidious tentacles. I don't think anything exist in contemporary society that is worthy of he name patriarchy. then you are sadly mistaken. most likely, you just don't have any properly theoretical conception of what is meant by the term. the patriarchy is just part of our ideology. it is "pouvoir" in the foucauldian sense, it is not some concrete instutition which is the sort of stupid, obvious thing you look for and don't find, it is much more subtle than that. It absolutely exists. Don't let the voguish stupidity of the way most people use the term discount the idea itself. Yeah that is just a bunch of bullshit to me, sorry. If you don't believe the patriarchy exists, consider the examples shown in the rural areas of India, and under Taliban influenced areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. These countries are rife with 14 year olds being sold into marriage, girls schools being closed, straight up gender segregation, and regular terrorism for failing to comply with gender norms. I have not listed all of the systemic legal and cultural rules imposed on women. There are many more there. Can you not grok this concept? When you think of those examples, does a pattern of gender roles not emerge? Men make the rules. Men imposed the rules. And men do this to maintain control over women. Do you not see what is going on there? , which pretty much holds that even though women have equal rights in every way, are still somehow being opressed by some abstraction. What I am disputing is that patriarchy is a useful concept to describe any phenomenon in contemporary society. I would be curious to hear your explanation why despite being legally equal women seem to be underrepresented in a number of elite professions and why their incomes -- even for the same level of education -- stagnate. In terms of economics it would be preposterous to suggest that equally qualified workers would recieve different wages solely based on their gender. Businesses that choose to employ overpaid men in favor of underpaid women would go out of business in favor of businesses employing only the equally qualified cheap women. The greater demand for the cheap women would create an upwards pressure on wages for women and a downward pressure on the wages of men, resulting in equal pay in equilibirum. The explanation must lie in elsewhere, discrimination can't account for differences in wages. One obvious factor would be the fact that the cost of pregnancy and child rearing responsibility disproportionately lies with female workers, and employers pay part of this cost through maternity leave, decreased productivity and lack of flexibility. The fact that women get pregnant and men don't, and women are most often the primary care giver is atleast in part founded in biology, and only a limited number of policy options are available to correct this difference. For example forcing employers to give as much paternity leave as maternity leave, like in some scandinavian countries. Ecouraging fathers to take more of the child rearing responsibilities is a more difficult problem, and I feel that complete parity can never be achieved, though there certainly has been a move towards greater participation by fathers. For elite professions the disparity can be explained in terms of different inherent preferences and perhaps even abillity. Women on average have a greater preference to work with people, wheras men more often than women prefer to work with things. Furthermore, to achieve the very top of any profession requires something of a single minded preoccupation that one might call an obsession, and I think men are more prone to develop that, whereas women's preoccupaitons might on average be more varied. To support this assertion I offer the fact that autism spectrum syndromes, partly characterized by obsessions for certain patterns, are much more prevalent in men, and a popular explanation for this is the ''male brain hypothesis". Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but I believe this can atleast offer some insight into the differences between men and women in elite professions. Even if I am wrong about some of these things, I still don't believe patriarchy is a useful concept that does offer insight. Perhaps you would be so kind as to offer explanations in terms of patriarhy, so we may decide whether this offers some superior or additional insight. lol Do you believe in that ? Wage has nothing to do with productivity, women are on average paid less because it is a social convention to do so. Pregnancy is the excuse. The proof is that the disparities in salaries are way less for younger generations.
Wage having "nothing" to do with productivity is a laughable assertion.
|
On December 24 2013 23:16 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 22:53 WhiteDog wrote:On December 24 2013 21:43 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 20:40 Sub40APM wrote:On December 24 2013 19:11 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 09:32 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On December 24 2013 08:58 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:53 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:51 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:49 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
so what you should try to do is understand what it is and how it functions, to make it less vague. it's true that what most feminists talk about when they talk about the "patriarchy" is vague and useless, but it's also true that there actually is a patriarchy and that our entire social fabric is shot through with its insidious tentacles. I don't think anything exist in contemporary society that is worthy of he name patriarchy. then you are sadly mistaken. most likely, you just don't have any properly theoretical conception of what is meant by the term. the patriarchy is just part of our ideology. it is "pouvoir" in the foucauldian sense, it is not some concrete instutition which is the sort of stupid, obvious thing you look for and don't find, it is much more subtle than that. It absolutely exists. Don't let the voguish stupidity of the way most people use the term discount the idea itself. Yeah that is just a bunch of bullshit to me, sorry. If you don't believe the patriarchy exists, consider the examples shown in the rural areas of India, and under Taliban influenced areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. These countries are rife with 14 year olds being sold into marriage, girls schools being closed, straight up gender segregation, and regular terrorism for failing to comply with gender norms. I have not listed all of the systemic legal and cultural rules imposed on women. There are many more there. Can you not grok this concept? When you think of those examples, does a pattern of gender roles not emerge? Men make the rules. Men imposed the rules. And men do this to maintain control over women. Do you not see what is going on there? , which pretty much holds that even though women have equal rights in every way, are still somehow being opressed by some abstraction. What I am disputing is that patriarchy is a useful concept to describe any phenomenon in contemporary society. I would be curious to hear your explanation why despite being legally equal women seem to be underrepresented in a number of elite professions and why their incomes -- even for the same level of education -- stagnate. In terms of economics it would be preposterous to suggest that equally qualified workers would recieve different wages solely based on their gender. Businesses that choose to employ overpaid men in favor of underpaid women would go out of business in favor of businesses employing only the equally qualified cheap women. The greater demand for the cheap women would create an upwards pressure on wages for women and a downward pressure on the wages of men, resulting in equal pay in equilibirum. The explanation must lie in elsewhere, discrimination can't account for differences in wages. One obvious factor would be the fact that the cost of pregnancy and child rearing responsibility disproportionately lies with female workers, and employers pay part of this cost through maternity leave, decreased productivity and lack of flexibility. The fact that women get pregnant and men don't, and women are most often the primary care giver is atleast in part founded in biology, and only a limited number of policy options are available to correct this difference. For example forcing employers to give as much paternity leave as maternity leave, like in some scandinavian countries. Ecouraging fathers to take more of the child rearing responsibilities is a more difficult problem, and I feel that complete parity can never be achieved, though there certainly has been a move towards greater participation by fathers. For elite professions the disparity can be explained in terms of different inherent preferences and perhaps even abillity. Women on average have a greater preference to work with people, wheras men more often than women prefer to work with things. Furthermore, to achieve the very top of any profession requires something of a single minded preoccupation that one might call an obsession, and I think men are more prone to develop that, whereas women's preoccupaitons might on average be more varied. To support this assertion I offer the fact that autism spectrum syndromes, partly characterized by obsessions for certain patterns, are much more prevalent in men, and a popular explanation for this is the ''male brain hypothesis". Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but I believe this can atleast offer some insight into the differences between men and women in elite professions. Even if I am wrong about some of these things, I still don't believe patriarchy is a useful concept that does offer insight. Perhaps you would be so kind as to offer explanations in terms of patriarhy, so we may decide whether this offers some superior or additional insight. lol Do you believe in that ? Wage has nothing to do with productivity, women are on average paid less because it is a social convention to do so. Pregnancy is the excuse. The proof is that the disparities in salaries are way less for younger generations. Wage having "nothing" to do with productivity is a laughable assertion.
I'll take the time to be clearer. The idea that people are paid at marginal productivity is retarded. It's a fraud some economists came up and it's actually a good exemple of a theory that has no empirical ground.
Now, for sure, there is an indirect link between individual "productivity" (something that you can't measure) and wage, as education and certifiate cultural capital can be arguments in a negociation or in a conflict, but wage overall are defined by balance of power between various social group - it's something Adam Smith, David Ricardo or Karl Marx all agreed upon (more or less) by the way.
|
United States42864 Posts
On December 24 2013 21:43 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 20:40 Sub40APM wrote:On December 24 2013 19:11 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 09:32 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On December 24 2013 08:58 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:53 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:51 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:49 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:16 Crushinator wrote:
It is nice to have a vague and highly abstract concept like patriarchy to blame for everything. so what you should try to do is understand what it is and how it functions, to make it less vague. it's true that what most feminists talk about when they talk about the "patriarchy" is vague and useless, but it's also true that there actually is a patriarchy and that our entire social fabric is shot through with its insidious tentacles. I don't think anything exist in contemporary society that is worthy of he name patriarchy. then you are sadly mistaken. most likely, you just don't have any properly theoretical conception of what is meant by the term. the patriarchy is just part of our ideology. it is "pouvoir" in the foucauldian sense, it is not some concrete instutition which is the sort of stupid, obvious thing you look for and don't find, it is much more subtle than that. It absolutely exists. Don't let the voguish stupidity of the way most people use the term discount the idea itself. Yeah that is just a bunch of bullshit to me, sorry. If you don't believe the patriarchy exists, consider the examples shown in the rural areas of India, and under Taliban influenced areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. These countries are rife with 14 year olds being sold into marriage, girls schools being closed, straight up gender segregation, and regular terrorism for failing to comply with gender norms. I have not listed all of the systemic legal and cultural rules imposed on women. There are many more there. Can you not grok this concept? When you think of those examples, does a pattern of gender roles not emerge? Men make the rules. Men imposed the rules. And men do this to maintain control over women. Do you not see what is going on there? , which pretty much holds that even though women have equal rights in every way, are still somehow being opressed by some abstraction. What I am disputing is that patriarchy is a useful concept to describe any phenomenon in contemporary society. I would be curious to hear your explanation why despite being legally equal women seem to be underrepresented in a number of elite professions and why their incomes -- even for the same level of education -- stagnate. In terms of economics it would be preposterous to suggest that equally qualified workers would recieve different wages solely based on their gender. Businesses that choose to employ overpaid men in favor of underpaid women would go out of business in favor of businesses employing only the equally qualified cheap women. The greater demand for the cheap women would create an upwards pressure on wages for women and a downward pressure on the wages of men, resulting in equal pay in equilibirum.
Sorry, at what point did everyone become perfectly rational actors with perfect information and when did internalised prejudices stop interfering with the accurate assessment of ability? Also in which business is competition so intense that slightly suboptimal employment practices will be the single factor which makes or breaks a business? Although, given you think this is being solved by economics I guess it must be all businesses everywhere.
It always amazes me that people believe the invisible hand is out there solving problems like this, it's a religion.
|
On December 24 2013 23:29 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 23:16 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 22:53 WhiteDog wrote:On December 24 2013 21:43 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 20:40 Sub40APM wrote:On December 24 2013 19:11 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 09:32 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On December 24 2013 08:58 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:53 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:51 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
I don't think anything exist in contemporary society that is worthy of he name patriarchy. then you are sadly mistaken. most likely, you just don't have any properly theoretical conception of what is meant by the term. the patriarchy is just part of our ideology. it is "pouvoir" in the foucauldian sense, it is not some concrete instutition which is the sort of stupid, obvious thing you look for and don't find, it is much more subtle than that. It absolutely exists. Don't let the voguish stupidity of the way most people use the term discount the idea itself. Yeah that is just a bunch of bullshit to me, sorry. If you don't believe the patriarchy exists, consider the examples shown in the rural areas of India, and under Taliban influenced areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. These countries are rife with 14 year olds being sold into marriage, girls schools being closed, straight up gender segregation, and regular terrorism for failing to comply with gender norms. I have not listed all of the systemic legal and cultural rules imposed on women. There are many more there. Can you not grok this concept? When you think of those examples, does a pattern of gender roles not emerge? Men make the rules. Men imposed the rules. And men do this to maintain control over women. Do you not see what is going on there? , which pretty much holds that even though women have equal rights in every way, are still somehow being opressed by some abstraction. What I am disputing is that patriarchy is a useful concept to describe any phenomenon in contemporary society. I would be curious to hear your explanation why despite being legally equal women seem to be underrepresented in a number of elite professions and why their incomes -- even for the same level of education -- stagnate. In terms of economics it would be preposterous to suggest that equally qualified workers would recieve different wages solely based on their gender. Businesses that choose to employ overpaid men in favor of underpaid women would go out of business in favor of businesses employing only the equally qualified cheap women. The greater demand for the cheap women would create an upwards pressure on wages for women and a downward pressure on the wages of men, resulting in equal pay in equilibirum. The explanation must lie in elsewhere, discrimination can't account for differences in wages. One obvious factor would be the fact that the cost of pregnancy and child rearing responsibility disproportionately lies with female workers, and employers pay part of this cost through maternity leave, decreased productivity and lack of flexibility. The fact that women get pregnant and men don't, and women are most often the primary care giver is atleast in part founded in biology, and only a limited number of policy options are available to correct this difference. For example forcing employers to give as much paternity leave as maternity leave, like in some scandinavian countries. Ecouraging fathers to take more of the child rearing responsibilities is a more difficult problem, and I feel that complete parity can never be achieved, though there certainly has been a move towards greater participation by fathers. For elite professions the disparity can be explained in terms of different inherent preferences and perhaps even abillity. Women on average have a greater preference to work with people, wheras men more often than women prefer to work with things. Furthermore, to achieve the very top of any profession requires something of a single minded preoccupation that one might call an obsession, and I think men are more prone to develop that, whereas women's preoccupaitons might on average be more varied. To support this assertion I offer the fact that autism spectrum syndromes, partly characterized by obsessions for certain patterns, are much more prevalent in men, and a popular explanation for this is the ''male brain hypothesis". Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but I believe this can atleast offer some insight into the differences between men and women in elite professions. Even if I am wrong about some of these things, I still don't believe patriarchy is a useful concept that does offer insight. Perhaps you would be so kind as to offer explanations in terms of patriarhy, so we may decide whether this offers some superior or additional insight. lol Do you believe in that ? Wage has nothing to do with productivity, women are on average paid less because it is a social convention to do so. Pregnancy is the excuse. The proof is that the disparities in salaries are way less for younger generations. Wage having "nothing" to do with productivity is a laughable assertion. I'll take the time to be clearer. The idea that people are paid at marginal productivity is retarded. It's a fraud some economists came up and it's actually a good exemple of a theory that has no empirical ground. Now, for sure, there is an indirect link between individual "productivity" (something that you can't measure) and wage, as education and certifiate cultural capital can be arguments in a negociation or in a conflict, but wage overall are defined by balance of power between various social group - it's something Adam Smith, David Ricardo or Karl Marx all agreed upon by the way.
So you believe that wage discrepancies can exist between equally productive workers, based only on sex? I see absolutely no possibility for it, my reasoning is sound, and you have done nothing to discredit it. It holds despite the fact that the models that set w=MPL are too simple to describe the real world, w=MPL is not a necessary condition for my reasoning. Rational actors would not hire more expensive workers, if they can hire cheaper but equally productive workers. And irrational actors would go out of business.
|
On December 24 2013 23:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 21:43 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 20:40 Sub40APM wrote:On December 24 2013 19:11 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 09:32 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On December 24 2013 08:58 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:53 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:51 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:49 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:16 Crushinator wrote:
It is nice to have a vague and highly abstract concept like patriarchy to blame for everything. so what you should try to do is understand what it is and how it functions, to make it less vague. it's true that what most feminists talk about when they talk about the "patriarchy" is vague and useless, but it's also true that there actually is a patriarchy and that our entire social fabric is shot through with its insidious tentacles. I don't think anything exist in contemporary society that is worthy of he name patriarchy. then you are sadly mistaken. most likely, you just don't have any properly theoretical conception of what is meant by the term. the patriarchy is just part of our ideology. it is "pouvoir" in the foucauldian sense, it is not some concrete instutition which is the sort of stupid, obvious thing you look for and don't find, it is much more subtle than that. It absolutely exists. Don't let the voguish stupidity of the way most people use the term discount the idea itself. Yeah that is just a bunch of bullshit to me, sorry. If you don't believe the patriarchy exists, consider the examples shown in the rural areas of India, and under Taliban influenced areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. These countries are rife with 14 year olds being sold into marriage, girls schools being closed, straight up gender segregation, and regular terrorism for failing to comply with gender norms. I have not listed all of the systemic legal and cultural rules imposed on women. There are many more there. Can you not grok this concept? When you think of those examples, does a pattern of gender roles not emerge? Men make the rules. Men imposed the rules. And men do this to maintain control over women. Do you not see what is going on there? , which pretty much holds that even though women have equal rights in every way, are still somehow being opressed by some abstraction. What I am disputing is that patriarchy is a useful concept to describe any phenomenon in contemporary society. I would be curious to hear your explanation why despite being legally equal women seem to be underrepresented in a number of elite professions and why their incomes -- even for the same level of education -- stagnate. In terms of economics it would be preposterous to suggest that equally qualified workers would recieve different wages solely based on their gender. Businesses that choose to employ overpaid men in favor of underpaid women would go out of business in favor of businesses employing only the equally qualified cheap women. The greater demand for the cheap women would create an upwards pressure on wages for women and a downward pressure on the wages of men, resulting in equal pay in equilibirum. Sorry, at what point did everyone become perfectly rational actors with perfect information and when did internalised prejudices stop interfering with the accurate assessment of ability? Also in which business is competition so intense that slightly suboptimal employment practices will be the single factor which makes or breaks a business? Although, given you think this is being solved by economics I guess it must be all businesses everywhere. It always amazes me that people believe the invisible hand is out there solving problems like this, it's a religion.
Perfection is not necessary, approximate rationality is enough. The wage gap is so large that it would require an improbable amount of irrationality to account for it.
Likewise, it amazes me that people like you believe in the invisible hand of patriarchy causing all sorts of shit.
|
United States42864 Posts
On December 24 2013 23:47 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 23:33 KwarK wrote:On December 24 2013 21:43 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 20:40 Sub40APM wrote:On December 24 2013 19:11 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 09:32 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On December 24 2013 08:58 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:53 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:51 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:49 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
so what you should try to do is understand what it is and how it functions, to make it less vague. it's true that what most feminists talk about when they talk about the "patriarchy" is vague and useless, but it's also true that there actually is a patriarchy and that our entire social fabric is shot through with its insidious tentacles. I don't think anything exist in contemporary society that is worthy of he name patriarchy. then you are sadly mistaken. most likely, you just don't have any properly theoretical conception of what is meant by the term. the patriarchy is just part of our ideology. it is "pouvoir" in the foucauldian sense, it is not some concrete instutition which is the sort of stupid, obvious thing you look for and don't find, it is much more subtle than that. It absolutely exists. Don't let the voguish stupidity of the way most people use the term discount the idea itself. Yeah that is just a bunch of bullshit to me, sorry. If you don't believe the patriarchy exists, consider the examples shown in the rural areas of India, and under Taliban influenced areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. These countries are rife with 14 year olds being sold into marriage, girls schools being closed, straight up gender segregation, and regular terrorism for failing to comply with gender norms. I have not listed all of the systemic legal and cultural rules imposed on women. There are many more there. Can you not grok this concept? When you think of those examples, does a pattern of gender roles not emerge? Men make the rules. Men imposed the rules. And men do this to maintain control over women. Do you not see what is going on there? , which pretty much holds that even though women have equal rights in every way, are still somehow being opressed by some abstraction. What I am disputing is that patriarchy is a useful concept to describe any phenomenon in contemporary society. I would be curious to hear your explanation why despite being legally equal women seem to be underrepresented in a number of elite professions and why their incomes -- even for the same level of education -- stagnate. In terms of economics it would be preposterous to suggest that equally qualified workers would recieve different wages solely based on their gender. Businesses that choose to employ overpaid men in favor of underpaid women would go out of business in favor of businesses employing only the equally qualified cheap women. The greater demand for the cheap women would create an upwards pressure on wages for women and a downward pressure on the wages of men, resulting in equal pay in equilibirum. Sorry, at what point did everyone become perfectly rational actors with perfect information and when did internalised prejudices stop interfering with the accurate assessment of ability? Also in which business is competition so intense that slightly suboptimal employment practices will be the single factor which makes or breaks a business? Although, given you think this is being solved by economics I guess it must be all businesses everywhere. It always amazes me that people believe the invisible hand is out there solving problems like this, it's a religion. Perfection is not necessary, approximate rationality is enough. The wage gap is so large that it would require an improbable amount of irrationality to account for it.
Improbable amount of irrationality? Have you met humanity? We have a near infinite supply of irrationality as you are currently demonstrating by your belief, against overwhelming evidence, that humans are rational actors.
|
On December 24 2013 23:39 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 23:29 WhiteDog wrote:On December 24 2013 23:16 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 22:53 WhiteDog wrote:On December 24 2013 21:43 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 20:40 Sub40APM wrote:On December 24 2013 19:11 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 09:32 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On December 24 2013 08:58 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:53 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
then you are sadly mistaken. most likely, you just don't have any properly theoretical conception of what is meant by the term. the patriarchy is just part of our ideology. it is "pouvoir" in the foucauldian sense, it is not some concrete instutition which is the sort of stupid, obvious thing you look for and don't find, it is much more subtle than that. It absolutely exists. Don't let the voguish stupidity of the way most people use the term discount the idea itself. Yeah that is just a bunch of bullshit to me, sorry. If you don't believe the patriarchy exists, consider the examples shown in the rural areas of India, and under Taliban influenced areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. These countries are rife with 14 year olds being sold into marriage, girls schools being closed, straight up gender segregation, and regular terrorism for failing to comply with gender norms. I have not listed all of the systemic legal and cultural rules imposed on women. There are many more there. Can you not grok this concept? When you think of those examples, does a pattern of gender roles not emerge? Men make the rules. Men imposed the rules. And men do this to maintain control over women. Do you not see what is going on there? , which pretty much holds that even though women have equal rights in every way, are still somehow being opressed by some abstraction. What I am disputing is that patriarchy is a useful concept to describe any phenomenon in contemporary society. I would be curious to hear your explanation why despite being legally equal women seem to be underrepresented in a number of elite professions and why their incomes -- even for the same level of education -- stagnate. In terms of economics it would be preposterous to suggest that equally qualified workers would recieve different wages solely based on their gender. Businesses that choose to employ overpaid men in favor of underpaid women would go out of business in favor of businesses employing only the equally qualified cheap women. The greater demand for the cheap women would create an upwards pressure on wages for women and a downward pressure on the wages of men, resulting in equal pay in equilibirum. The explanation must lie in elsewhere, discrimination can't account for differences in wages. One obvious factor would be the fact that the cost of pregnancy and child rearing responsibility disproportionately lies with female workers, and employers pay part of this cost through maternity leave, decreased productivity and lack of flexibility. The fact that women get pregnant and men don't, and women are most often the primary care giver is atleast in part founded in biology, and only a limited number of policy options are available to correct this difference. For example forcing employers to give as much paternity leave as maternity leave, like in some scandinavian countries. Ecouraging fathers to take more of the child rearing responsibilities is a more difficult problem, and I feel that complete parity can never be achieved, though there certainly has been a move towards greater participation by fathers. For elite professions the disparity can be explained in terms of different inherent preferences and perhaps even abillity. Women on average have a greater preference to work with people, wheras men more often than women prefer to work with things. Furthermore, to achieve the very top of any profession requires something of a single minded preoccupation that one might call an obsession, and I think men are more prone to develop that, whereas women's preoccupaitons might on average be more varied. To support this assertion I offer the fact that autism spectrum syndromes, partly characterized by obsessions for certain patterns, are much more prevalent in men, and a popular explanation for this is the ''male brain hypothesis". Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but I believe this can atleast offer some insight into the differences between men and women in elite professions. Even if I am wrong about some of these things, I still don't believe patriarchy is a useful concept that does offer insight. Perhaps you would be so kind as to offer explanations in terms of patriarhy, so we may decide whether this offers some superior or additional insight. lol Do you believe in that ? Wage has nothing to do with productivity, women are on average paid less because it is a social convention to do so. Pregnancy is the excuse. The proof is that the disparities in salaries are way less for younger generations. Wage having "nothing" to do with productivity is a laughable assertion. I'll take the time to be clearer. The idea that people are paid at marginal productivity is retarded. It's a fraud some economists came up and it's actually a good exemple of a theory that has no empirical ground. Now, for sure, there is an indirect link between individual "productivity" (something that you can't measure) and wage, as education and certifiate cultural capital can be arguments in a negociation or in a conflict, but wage overall are defined by balance of power between various social group - it's something Adam Smith, David Ricardo or Karl Marx all agreed upon by the way. So you believe that wage discrepancies can exist between equally productive workers, based only on sex? I see absolutely no possibility for it, my reasoning is sound, and you have done nothing to discredit it. It holds despite the fact that the models that set w=MPL are too simple to describe the real world, w=MPL is not a necessary condition for my reasoning. Rational actors would not hire more expensive workers, if they can hire cheaper but equally productive workers. And irrational actors would go out of business.
Here's your problem. People often don't behave rationally; see behavioral economics. Even if people are rational, they don't make the optimal choice unless they have perfect information. Consider a sexist who is interviewing a man and woman for the same position. The woman is objectively a better candidate, but the interviewer is sexist so he thinks the man is a better candidate and hires him instead. This pattern is repeated across the economy because sexism is real.
It's dangerous to talk about economics when you only have a class or two under your belt. I majored in economics, which means I know just enough about the subject to know that I don't know shit about economics. The real world doesn't fit into the neat little graphs that you learn about in introductory economics courses.
Edit:
There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent.
Source
Even when all the "observable differences" (i.e. rational differentiators) between men and women are taken into account, women still get paid less than men.
|
On December 24 2013 16:23 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 14:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 24 2013 13:55 IgnE wrote:On December 24 2013 09:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 24 2013 09:26 IgnE wrote:On December 24 2013 08:21 KwarK wrote:On December 24 2013 08:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On December 24 2013 07:50 KwarK wrote:On December 24 2013 07:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:On December 24 2013 04:13 KwarK wrote:
Paglia's argument was that women should be grateful to men for creating the world they live in. That was the argument being made.
[quote]
Men created it all, women were not the authors. Modern women should be grateful that men created it. You agreed with me that that argument was indecent, you just don't seem to have read the quote I was referring to because it makes exactly that argument. Well yes women should be grateful that men built the "vast production and distribution network." The same way men should be grateful that women wiped their asses and taught them to read and kissed their ouchies and all that. Obviously to some people men get more credit for doing that stuff than women do for doing that other stuff but I don't see where one is more important than the other. You're not getting it. Men and women didn't collectively get together and share out tasks then appreciate each other for doing a good job, men systematically oppressed women, denied them power and forced them into the domestic sphere. Women shouldn't get credit for selflessly choosing to be domestic sphere because they didn't, they were forced there. Likewise men shouldn't get credit for taking all the power, making all the decisions and doing all the politics/finance/industry while women didn't do any of it because the reason women didn't do any of it is because they weren't allowed to. If we agree on a division of labour and then someone does their job well then you recognise that and say "nice job". If someone forces you not to do the job, insists they do it and then monopolises the rewards of the job while forcing you to do a shitty job, they're not doing you any favours. Unless you're suggesting that had women been able to enter politics human progress wouldn't have happened I don't see any reason women should be grateful for what men did during their oppression. The same things still would have happened, it's just some of the hands making history would have been female. In light of the suppression of women in professional, "world-changing" work to this day in all but a handful of countries, I think it's foolish (you're not doing it, I'm speaking in general) to view history in terms of "men and women" (something that is already foolish). It should be viewed as in terms of people overall. The conditions were there for men, and not for women. Women should not be seen as some different entity. Humans are humans. Look at it in terms of the history of civilizations. The conditions were there, for example, for western/central European countries (and somehow Russia recovered as they always do from catastrophe) to lead the way in human technological progress, when the Mongols destroyed the greatest, most advanced, and richest civilizations in the world, from the Chinese dynasties in the east to much of the Middle East and Kievan Rus in the west, it allowed western/central Europe to proceed without competition, unsurprisingly drawing lots of knowledge and inspiration from the advanced Islamic world which had fallen into decay with the Mongol conquests. Without the Mongols, among many other things, the world would be a lot different. Now should "lesser nations" thank and kiss ass to the "greater nations" (who are also exploiting them lol) for this progress that is the result of the "greater nations" not getting assfucked to oblivion like many "lesser nations" were in the past? From your perspective, maybe, but it's simply very narrow to look at an oppressed group and tell them "You should thank us for doing things because there were conditions in play that never allowed you to do those things". This is why I don't look down on countries on the basis that they don't contribute to overall human progress like developed, advanced nations do, since the conditions are not there for them to be able to do so, just as you can't look down on women for not contributing much in the span of human history, since the conditions were not and still aren't there. To expect them to be thankful for the achievements of others that they couldn't contribute to because they were oppressed, is like expecting black slaves back in the day to be thankful that their slave owners provided food and shelter and clothing for them despite being treated worse than the mules and other animals they worked with. It's kinda twisted to be honest. I understand your view comes from an optimistic outlook on the matter when you say that women should be grateful to men. But I think it should be a matter of humans congratulating humans, instead of women congratulating men. I realize that's kind of a radical view in most of the world, but to see humans and a sub-section of humans (whether a country, gender, etc.) and their ability to make progress is based on the conditions at hand, rather than the implication that women wouldn't have been able to, is kind of my take on things. We agree wholly. I'm arguing against Paglia, you're arguing against Paglia too. You just misread my post. It's remarkable to me that we can go through five pages of discussion about a narrow set of comments from Paglia and we are still discussing quotes out of context and with no sense of nuance gained from the previous discussion. The division of labor is a requirement of capitalism. Women took on (or had imposed on them) the reproductive work of feeding, cleaning, nurturing, and supporting alienated labor, a predominantly male population forced into a one-dimensional role that sells its labor power in return for the minimum necessary wages required to perform the reproductive work of living for themselves and their family. Women were forced into this role because they had wombs required for child-bearing to grow the labor force in the early days of capitalism, whereas men are more expendable. It doesn't matter if a sizable percentage of men are chewed up by the conditions of wage slavery before they can have children. When the productive work is alienated from the laborer, that is, the labor sells his labor power as such, rather than the sensual production of his labor, and is given a wage in exchange for that power in order to profit capital, the laborer is reduced to a one-sided entity: "factory worker," "office worker," etc. The construction of one-sided "identities" like "woman," "construction worker," "black man" is the result of a totalizing capitalist reduction of human beings from persons who perform and enjoy the fruits of their productive labor as well as freely engage in reproductive work, like eating, sleeping, nurturing, playing, and learning. Being a "woman" means producing and reproducing a set of social relations of labor, or the business of living life. So when Paglia says men have built the world we live in she is right. And when it is pointed out that women have largely performed the reproductive labor of society by taking care of men and children while the men labored it is accurate. To come back and say. "Well women didn't choose that," is to miss the point that men didn't choose wage slavery either. Patriachy is a product of capitalist labor relations. (typed on my phone so whatever) What a bunch of gobbledygook. I guess you aren't familiar with constructed identities because you economics and business people believe in rational actors and prefer universal natural categories. Nah, I've worked in retail  Edit: and what are you refuting with that line anyways? A 100% dogmatic belief in the freshwater vs saltwater debate? Did you miss the latest Nobel in economics award (Schiller and Fama (and that other guy))? Regardless, I went to 'busyness' school where we don't stick to odd abstractions and constant paradigms anyhow. No the posts quoted including mine were only tangentially related to macroeconomics and not related to monetary policy. I was responding to your comment that you think the feminization of reproductive labor under capitalism which forces women into a socially constructed box of womanhood is gobbeldygook (or alternatively racially relegated forms of labor). My comments were meant to imply that you don't seriously consider the construction of identity because you fetishize a liberal conception of theindividual whose primary freedom is access to a free market (and the attendant freedom to assume an identity that totalizes a behavior or social relation).
Male and female peacocks have a gender based division of labor. I guess that's because of capitalism too 
|
On December 24 2013 23:39 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 23:29 WhiteDog wrote:On December 24 2013 23:16 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 22:53 WhiteDog wrote:On December 24 2013 21:43 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 20:40 Sub40APM wrote:On December 24 2013 19:11 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 09:32 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On December 24 2013 08:58 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:53 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
then you are sadly mistaken. most likely, you just don't have any properly theoretical conception of what is meant by the term. the patriarchy is just part of our ideology. it is "pouvoir" in the foucauldian sense, it is not some concrete instutition which is the sort of stupid, obvious thing you look for and don't find, it is much more subtle than that. It absolutely exists. Don't let the voguish stupidity of the way most people use the term discount the idea itself. Yeah that is just a bunch of bullshit to me, sorry. If you don't believe the patriarchy exists, consider the examples shown in the rural areas of India, and under Taliban influenced areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. These countries are rife with 14 year olds being sold into marriage, girls schools being closed, straight up gender segregation, and regular terrorism for failing to comply with gender norms. I have not listed all of the systemic legal and cultural rules imposed on women. There are many more there. Can you not grok this concept? When you think of those examples, does a pattern of gender roles not emerge? Men make the rules. Men imposed the rules. And men do this to maintain control over women. Do you not see what is going on there? , which pretty much holds that even though women have equal rights in every way, are still somehow being opressed by some abstraction. What I am disputing is that patriarchy is a useful concept to describe any phenomenon in contemporary society. I would be curious to hear your explanation why despite being legally equal women seem to be underrepresented in a number of elite professions and why their incomes -- even for the same level of education -- stagnate. In terms of economics it would be preposterous to suggest that equally qualified workers would recieve different wages solely based on their gender. Businesses that choose to employ overpaid men in favor of underpaid women would go out of business in favor of businesses employing only the equally qualified cheap women. The greater demand for the cheap women would create an upwards pressure on wages for women and a downward pressure on the wages of men, resulting in equal pay in equilibirum. The explanation must lie in elsewhere, discrimination can't account for differences in wages. One obvious factor would be the fact that the cost of pregnancy and child rearing responsibility disproportionately lies with female workers, and employers pay part of this cost through maternity leave, decreased productivity and lack of flexibility. The fact that women get pregnant and men don't, and women are most often the primary care giver is atleast in part founded in biology, and only a limited number of policy options are available to correct this difference. For example forcing employers to give as much paternity leave as maternity leave, like in some scandinavian countries. Ecouraging fathers to take more of the child rearing responsibilities is a more difficult problem, and I feel that complete parity can never be achieved, though there certainly has been a move towards greater participation by fathers. For elite professions the disparity can be explained in terms of different inherent preferences and perhaps even abillity. Women on average have a greater preference to work with people, wheras men more often than women prefer to work with things. Furthermore, to achieve the very top of any profession requires something of a single minded preoccupation that one might call an obsession, and I think men are more prone to develop that, whereas women's preoccupaitons might on average be more varied. To support this assertion I offer the fact that autism spectrum syndromes, partly characterized by obsessions for certain patterns, are much more prevalent in men, and a popular explanation for this is the ''male brain hypothesis". Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but I believe this can atleast offer some insight into the differences between men and women in elite professions. Even if I am wrong about some of these things, I still don't believe patriarchy is a useful concept that does offer insight. Perhaps you would be so kind as to offer explanations in terms of patriarhy, so we may decide whether this offers some superior or additional insight. lol Do you believe in that ? Wage has nothing to do with productivity, women are on average paid less because it is a social convention to do so. Pregnancy is the excuse. The proof is that the disparities in salaries are way less for younger generations. Wage having "nothing" to do with productivity is a laughable assertion. I'll take the time to be clearer. The idea that people are paid at marginal productivity is retarded. It's a fraud some economists came up and it's actually a good exemple of a theory that has no empirical ground. Now, for sure, there is an indirect link between individual "productivity" (something that you can't measure) and wage, as education and certifiate cultural capital can be arguments in a negociation or in a conflict, but wage overall are defined by balance of power between various social group - it's something Adam Smith, David Ricardo or Karl Marx all agreed upon by the way. So you believe that wage discrepancies can exist between equally productive workers, based only on sex? I see absolutely no possibility for it, my reasoning is sound, and you have done nothing to discredit it. It holds despite the fact that the models that set w=MPL are too simple to describe the real world, w=MPL is not a necessary condition for my reasoning. Rational actors would not hire more expensive workers, if they can hire cheaper but equally productive workers. And irrational actors would go out of business.
I do not believe that discrepancies can exists... there are discrepancies between equally productive workers, and more than that less productive workers are sometime paid more. You "reasoning" is an ideology that has been formalized by economists just to justify wage inequalities.
Rational actors is a model : it has valid use to see how someone should behave, but no sane economists actually believe people act exactly as the theory suggest they should. Just like most model. In this situation, as I said you cannot actually measure the productivity of one individual, as production is a social activity : how can a rational actor actually know if the guy he employ is actually productive enough to justify a pay raise, since he cannot measure the productivity of said worker ? How will he be able to find a more productive worker ? Because labor market respect the condition of perfect and pure competition ? lol
I'll tell you how he will do : he will use networks to find a good worker, or he will employ someone that has a certificate coming from specific school, or he will promote someone he already know - meaning he will relate to social groups who built their own conventions to measure the value of workers.
|
On December 24 2013 23:51 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 23:39 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 23:29 WhiteDog wrote:On December 24 2013 23:16 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 22:53 WhiteDog wrote:On December 24 2013 21:43 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 20:40 Sub40APM wrote:On December 24 2013 19:11 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 09:32 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On December 24 2013 08:58 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
Yeah that is just a bunch of bullshit to me, sorry. If you don't believe the patriarchy exists, consider the examples shown in the rural areas of India, and under Taliban influenced areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. These countries are rife with 14 year olds being sold into marriage, girls schools being closed, straight up gender segregation, and regular terrorism for failing to comply with gender norms. I have not listed all of the systemic legal and cultural rules imposed on women. There are many more there. Can you not grok this concept? When you think of those examples, does a pattern of gender roles not emerge? Men make the rules. Men imposed the rules. And men do this to maintain control over women. Do you not see what is going on there? , which pretty much holds that even though women have equal rights in every way, are still somehow being opressed by some abstraction. What I am disputing is that patriarchy is a useful concept to describe any phenomenon in contemporary society. I would be curious to hear your explanation why despite being legally equal women seem to be underrepresented in a number of elite professions and why their incomes -- even for the same level of education -- stagnate. In terms of economics it would be preposterous to suggest that equally qualified workers would recieve different wages solely based on their gender. Businesses that choose to employ overpaid men in favor of underpaid women would go out of business in favor of businesses employing only the equally qualified cheap women. The greater demand for the cheap women would create an upwards pressure on wages for women and a downward pressure on the wages of men, resulting in equal pay in equilibirum. The explanation must lie in elsewhere, discrimination can't account for differences in wages. One obvious factor would be the fact that the cost of pregnancy and child rearing responsibility disproportionately lies with female workers, and employers pay part of this cost through maternity leave, decreased productivity and lack of flexibility. The fact that women get pregnant and men don't, and women are most often the primary care giver is atleast in part founded in biology, and only a limited number of policy options are available to correct this difference. For example forcing employers to give as much paternity leave as maternity leave, like in some scandinavian countries. Ecouraging fathers to take more of the child rearing responsibilities is a more difficult problem, and I feel that complete parity can never be achieved, though there certainly has been a move towards greater participation by fathers. For elite professions the disparity can be explained in terms of different inherent preferences and perhaps even abillity. Women on average have a greater preference to work with people, wheras men more often than women prefer to work with things. Furthermore, to achieve the very top of any profession requires something of a single minded preoccupation that one might call an obsession, and I think men are more prone to develop that, whereas women's preoccupaitons might on average be more varied. To support this assertion I offer the fact that autism spectrum syndromes, partly characterized by obsessions for certain patterns, are much more prevalent in men, and a popular explanation for this is the ''male brain hypothesis". Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but I believe this can atleast offer some insight into the differences between men and women in elite professions. Even if I am wrong about some of these things, I still don't believe patriarchy is a useful concept that does offer insight. Perhaps you would be so kind as to offer explanations in terms of patriarhy, so we may decide whether this offers some superior or additional insight. lol Do you believe in that ? Wage has nothing to do with productivity, women are on average paid less because it is a social convention to do so. Pregnancy is the excuse. The proof is that the disparities in salaries are way less for younger generations. Wage having "nothing" to do with productivity is a laughable assertion. I'll take the time to be clearer. The idea that people are paid at marginal productivity is retarded. It's a fraud some economists came up and it's actually a good exemple of a theory that has no empirical ground. Now, for sure, there is an indirect link between individual "productivity" (something that you can't measure) and wage, as education and certifiate cultural capital can be arguments in a negociation or in a conflict, but wage overall are defined by balance of power between various social group - it's something Adam Smith, David Ricardo or Karl Marx all agreed upon by the way. So you believe that wage discrepancies can exist between equally productive workers, based only on sex? I see absolutely no possibility for it, my reasoning is sound, and you have done nothing to discredit it. It holds despite the fact that the models that set w=MPL are too simple to describe the real world, w=MPL is not a necessary condition for my reasoning. Rational actors would not hire more expensive workers, if they can hire cheaper but equally productive workers. And irrational actors would go out of business. Here's your problem. People often don't behave rationally; see behavioral economics. Even if people are rational, they don't make the optimal choice unless they have perfect information. Consider a sexist who is interviewing a man and woman for the same position. The woman is objectively a better candidate, but the interviewer is sexist so he thinks the man is a better candidate and hires him instead. This pattern is repeated across the economy because sexism is real. It's dangerous to talk about economics when you only have a class or two under your belt. I majored in economics, which means I know just enough about the subject to know that I don't know shit about economics. The real world doesn't fit into the neat little graphs that you learn about in introductory economics courses.
I will soon have a masters degree in economics. Models that assume rational actors very often make useful predictions about economic choices.. That is not to say that I don't think individuals can be sexist, I just find it highly implausible that the wage gap can be eplained by patriarchy theory. It would require a solid body of evidence in any case. You would have to show that men have a significant amount of same group preference, that men are more often judged favorably, etc. The evidence for this very scarce as far as I can tell.
|
On December 25 2013 00:03 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 23:51 Mercy13 wrote:On December 24 2013 23:39 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 23:29 WhiteDog wrote:On December 24 2013 23:16 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 22:53 WhiteDog wrote:On December 24 2013 21:43 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 20:40 Sub40APM wrote:On December 24 2013 19:11 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 09:32 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
[quote]
If you don't believe the patriarchy exists, consider the examples shown in the rural areas of India, and under Taliban influenced areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. These countries are rife with 14 year olds being sold into marriage, girls schools being closed, straight up gender segregation, and regular terrorism for failing to comply with gender norms. I have not listed all of the systemic legal and cultural rules imposed on women. There are many more there.
Can you not grok this concept? When you think of those examples, does a pattern of gender roles not emerge? Men make the rules. Men imposed the rules. And men do this to maintain control over women. Do you not see what is going on there?
, which pretty much holds that even though women have equal rights in every way, are still somehow being opressed by some abstraction. What I am disputing is that patriarchy is a useful concept to describe any phenomenon in contemporary society. I would be curious to hear your explanation why despite being legally equal women seem to be underrepresented in a number of elite professions and why their incomes -- even for the same level of education -- stagnate. In terms of economics it would be preposterous to suggest that equally qualified workers would recieve different wages solely based on their gender. Businesses that choose to employ overpaid men in favor of underpaid women would go out of business in favor of businesses employing only the equally qualified cheap women. The greater demand for the cheap women would create an upwards pressure on wages for women and a downward pressure on the wages of men, resulting in equal pay in equilibirum. The explanation must lie in elsewhere, discrimination can't account for differences in wages. One obvious factor would be the fact that the cost of pregnancy and child rearing responsibility disproportionately lies with female workers, and employers pay part of this cost through maternity leave, decreased productivity and lack of flexibility. The fact that women get pregnant and men don't, and women are most often the primary care giver is atleast in part founded in biology, and only a limited number of policy options are available to correct this difference. For example forcing employers to give as much paternity leave as maternity leave, like in some scandinavian countries. Ecouraging fathers to take more of the child rearing responsibilities is a more difficult problem, and I feel that complete parity can never be achieved, though there certainly has been a move towards greater participation by fathers. For elite professions the disparity can be explained in terms of different inherent preferences and perhaps even abillity. Women on average have a greater preference to work with people, wheras men more often than women prefer to work with things. Furthermore, to achieve the very top of any profession requires something of a single minded preoccupation that one might call an obsession, and I think men are more prone to develop that, whereas women's preoccupaitons might on average be more varied. To support this assertion I offer the fact that autism spectrum syndromes, partly characterized by obsessions for certain patterns, are much more prevalent in men, and a popular explanation for this is the ''male brain hypothesis". Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but I believe this can atleast offer some insight into the differences between men and women in elite professions. Even if I am wrong about some of these things, I still don't believe patriarchy is a useful concept that does offer insight. Perhaps you would be so kind as to offer explanations in terms of patriarhy, so we may decide whether this offers some superior or additional insight. lol Do you believe in that ? Wage has nothing to do with productivity, women are on average paid less because it is a social convention to do so. Pregnancy is the excuse. The proof is that the disparities in salaries are way less for younger generations. Wage having "nothing" to do with productivity is a laughable assertion. I'll take the time to be clearer. The idea that people are paid at marginal productivity is retarded. It's a fraud some economists came up and it's actually a good exemple of a theory that has no empirical ground. Now, for sure, there is an indirect link between individual "productivity" (something that you can't measure) and wage, as education and certifiate cultural capital can be arguments in a negociation or in a conflict, but wage overall are defined by balance of power between various social group - it's something Adam Smith, David Ricardo or Karl Marx all agreed upon by the way. So you believe that wage discrepancies can exist between equally productive workers, based only on sex? I see absolutely no possibility for it, my reasoning is sound, and you have done nothing to discredit it. It holds despite the fact that the models that set w=MPL are too simple to describe the real world, w=MPL is not a necessary condition for my reasoning. Rational actors would not hire more expensive workers, if they can hire cheaper but equally productive workers. And irrational actors would go out of business. Here's your problem. People often don't behave rationally; see behavioral economics. Even if people are rational, they don't make the optimal choice unless they have perfect information. Consider a sexist who is interviewing a man and woman for the same position. The woman is objectively a better candidate, but the interviewer is sexist so he thinks the man is a better candidate and hires him instead. This pattern is repeated across the economy because sexism is real. It's dangerous to talk about economics when you only have a class or two under your belt. I majored in economics, which means I know just enough about the subject to know that I don't know shit about economics. The real world doesn't fit into the neat little graphs that you learn about in introductory economics courses. I will soon have a masters degree in economics. Models that assume rational actors very often make useful predictions about economic choices.. That is not to say that I don't think individuals can be sexist, I just find it highly implausible that the wage gap can be eplained by patriarchy theory. It would require a solid body of evidence in any case. You would have to show that men have a significant amount of same group preference, that men are more often judged favorably, etc. The evidence for this very scarce as far as I can tell.
Makes me think about Larry Summers joking about some economists who would argue that an electricity breakdown would not hurt the economy more than 3% of GDP because the electricity represent 3% of GDP. Just because we don't entirely understands how it work does not mean it's wrong.
And for your reasonning there are no evidence at all, and none can be made.
By the way I have a master in economy you know.
|
Well I just edited in a widely cited paper above that identifies a wage gap of 4.9 -7.1% even when all observable differences between men and women are taken into account.
Edit: besides gender, that is.
|
United States42864 Posts
On December 25 2013 00:03 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 23:51 Mercy13 wrote:On December 24 2013 23:39 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 23:29 WhiteDog wrote:On December 24 2013 23:16 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 22:53 WhiteDog wrote:On December 24 2013 21:43 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 20:40 Sub40APM wrote:On December 24 2013 19:11 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 09:32 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
[quote]
If you don't believe the patriarchy exists, consider the examples shown in the rural areas of India, and under Taliban influenced areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. These countries are rife with 14 year olds being sold into marriage, girls schools being closed, straight up gender segregation, and regular terrorism for failing to comply with gender norms. I have not listed all of the systemic legal and cultural rules imposed on women. There are many more there.
Can you not grok this concept? When you think of those examples, does a pattern of gender roles not emerge? Men make the rules. Men imposed the rules. And men do this to maintain control over women. Do you not see what is going on there?
, which pretty much holds that even though women have equal rights in every way, are still somehow being opressed by some abstraction. What I am disputing is that patriarchy is a useful concept to describe any phenomenon in contemporary society. I would be curious to hear your explanation why despite being legally equal women seem to be underrepresented in a number of elite professions and why their incomes -- even for the same level of education -- stagnate. In terms of economics it would be preposterous to suggest that equally qualified workers would recieve different wages solely based on their gender. Businesses that choose to employ overpaid men in favor of underpaid women would go out of business in favor of businesses employing only the equally qualified cheap women. The greater demand for the cheap women would create an upwards pressure on wages for women and a downward pressure on the wages of men, resulting in equal pay in equilibirum. The explanation must lie in elsewhere, discrimination can't account for differences in wages. One obvious factor would be the fact that the cost of pregnancy and child rearing responsibility disproportionately lies with female workers, and employers pay part of this cost through maternity leave, decreased productivity and lack of flexibility. The fact that women get pregnant and men don't, and women are most often the primary care giver is atleast in part founded in biology, and only a limited number of policy options are available to correct this difference. For example forcing employers to give as much paternity leave as maternity leave, like in some scandinavian countries. Ecouraging fathers to take more of the child rearing responsibilities is a more difficult problem, and I feel that complete parity can never be achieved, though there certainly has been a move towards greater participation by fathers. For elite professions the disparity can be explained in terms of different inherent preferences and perhaps even abillity. Women on average have a greater preference to work with people, wheras men more often than women prefer to work with things. Furthermore, to achieve the very top of any profession requires something of a single minded preoccupation that one might call an obsession, and I think men are more prone to develop that, whereas women's preoccupaitons might on average be more varied. To support this assertion I offer the fact that autism spectrum syndromes, partly characterized by obsessions for certain patterns, are much more prevalent in men, and a popular explanation for this is the ''male brain hypothesis". Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but I believe this can atleast offer some insight into the differences between men and women in elite professions. Even if I am wrong about some of these things, I still don't believe patriarchy is a useful concept that does offer insight. Perhaps you would be so kind as to offer explanations in terms of patriarhy, so we may decide whether this offers some superior or additional insight. lol Do you believe in that ? Wage has nothing to do with productivity, women are on average paid less because it is a social convention to do so. Pregnancy is the excuse. The proof is that the disparities in salaries are way less for younger generations. Wage having "nothing" to do with productivity is a laughable assertion. I'll take the time to be clearer. The idea that people are paid at marginal productivity is retarded. It's a fraud some economists came up and it's actually a good exemple of a theory that has no empirical ground. Now, for sure, there is an indirect link between individual "productivity" (something that you can't measure) and wage, as education and certifiate cultural capital can be arguments in a negociation or in a conflict, but wage overall are defined by balance of power between various social group - it's something Adam Smith, David Ricardo or Karl Marx all agreed upon by the way. So you believe that wage discrepancies can exist between equally productive workers, based only on sex? I see absolutely no possibility for it, my reasoning is sound, and you have done nothing to discredit it. It holds despite the fact that the models that set w=MPL are too simple to describe the real world, w=MPL is not a necessary condition for my reasoning. Rational actors would not hire more expensive workers, if they can hire cheaper but equally productive workers. And irrational actors would go out of business. Here's your problem. People often don't behave rationally; see behavioral economics. Even if people are rational, they don't make the optimal choice unless they have perfect information. Consider a sexist who is interviewing a man and woman for the same position. The woman is objectively a better candidate, but the interviewer is sexist so he thinks the man is a better candidate and hires him instead. This pattern is repeated across the economy because sexism is real. It's dangerous to talk about economics when you only have a class or two under your belt. I majored in economics, which means I know just enough about the subject to know that I don't know shit about economics. The real world doesn't fit into the neat little graphs that you learn about in introductory economics courses. I will soon have a masters degree in economics. Models that assume rational actors very often make useful predictions about economic choices.. That is not to say that I don't think individuals can be sexist, I just find it highly implausible that the wage gap can be eplained by patriarchy theory. It would require a solid body of evidence in any case. You would have to show that men have a significant amount of same group preference, that men are more often judged favorably, etc. The evidence for this very scarce as far as I can tell.
Hi, this took all of 30 seconds to find.
http://advance.cornell.edu/documents/ImpactofGender.pdf
Basically you can put a guys name and a girls name on the very same resume, send it to the same employer and have the man offered the job and the woman rejected.
|
On December 25 2013 00:08 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 00:03 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 23:51 Mercy13 wrote:On December 24 2013 23:39 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 23:29 WhiteDog wrote:On December 24 2013 23:16 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 22:53 WhiteDog wrote:On December 24 2013 21:43 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 20:40 Sub40APM wrote:On December 24 2013 19:11 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
, which pretty much holds that even though women have equal rights in every way, are still somehow being opressed by some abstraction. What I am disputing is that patriarchy is a useful concept to describe any phenomenon in contemporary society.
I would be curious to hear your explanation why despite being legally equal women seem to be underrepresented in a number of elite professions and why their incomes -- even for the same level of education -- stagnate. In terms of economics it would be preposterous to suggest that equally qualified workers would recieve different wages solely based on their gender. Businesses that choose to employ overpaid men in favor of underpaid women would go out of business in favor of businesses employing only the equally qualified cheap women. The greater demand for the cheap women would create an upwards pressure on wages for women and a downward pressure on the wages of men, resulting in equal pay in equilibirum. The explanation must lie in elsewhere, discrimination can't account for differences in wages. One obvious factor would be the fact that the cost of pregnancy and child rearing responsibility disproportionately lies with female workers, and employers pay part of this cost through maternity leave, decreased productivity and lack of flexibility. The fact that women get pregnant and men don't, and women are most often the primary care giver is atleast in part founded in biology, and only a limited number of policy options are available to correct this difference. For example forcing employers to give as much paternity leave as maternity leave, like in some scandinavian countries. Ecouraging fathers to take more of the child rearing responsibilities is a more difficult problem, and I feel that complete parity can never be achieved, though there certainly has been a move towards greater participation by fathers. For elite professions the disparity can be explained in terms of different inherent preferences and perhaps even abillity. Women on average have a greater preference to work with people, wheras men more often than women prefer to work with things. Furthermore, to achieve the very top of any profession requires something of a single minded preoccupation that one might call an obsession, and I think men are more prone to develop that, whereas women's preoccupaitons might on average be more varied. To support this assertion I offer the fact that autism spectrum syndromes, partly characterized by obsessions for certain patterns, are much more prevalent in men, and a popular explanation for this is the ''male brain hypothesis". Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but I believe this can atleast offer some insight into the differences between men and women in elite professions. Even if I am wrong about some of these things, I still don't believe patriarchy is a useful concept that does offer insight. Perhaps you would be so kind as to offer explanations in terms of patriarhy, so we may decide whether this offers some superior or additional insight. lol Do you believe in that ? Wage has nothing to do with productivity, women are on average paid less because it is a social convention to do so. Pregnancy is the excuse. The proof is that the disparities in salaries are way less for younger generations. Wage having "nothing" to do with productivity is a laughable assertion. I'll take the time to be clearer. The idea that people are paid at marginal productivity is retarded. It's a fraud some economists came up and it's actually a good exemple of a theory that has no empirical ground. Now, for sure, there is an indirect link between individual "productivity" (something that you can't measure) and wage, as education and certifiate cultural capital can be arguments in a negociation or in a conflict, but wage overall are defined by balance of power between various social group - it's something Adam Smith, David Ricardo or Karl Marx all agreed upon by the way. So you believe that wage discrepancies can exist between equally productive workers, based only on sex? I see absolutely no possibility for it, my reasoning is sound, and you have done nothing to discredit it. It holds despite the fact that the models that set w=MPL are too simple to describe the real world, w=MPL is not a necessary condition for my reasoning. Rational actors would not hire more expensive workers, if they can hire cheaper but equally productive workers. And irrational actors would go out of business. Here's your problem. People often don't behave rationally; see behavioral economics. Even if people are rational, they don't make the optimal choice unless they have perfect information. Consider a sexist who is interviewing a man and woman for the same position. The woman is objectively a better candidate, but the interviewer is sexist so he thinks the man is a better candidate and hires him instead. This pattern is repeated across the economy because sexism is real. It's dangerous to talk about economics when you only have a class or two under your belt. I majored in economics, which means I know just enough about the subject to know that I don't know shit about economics. The real world doesn't fit into the neat little graphs that you learn about in introductory economics courses. I will soon have a masters degree in economics. Models that assume rational actors very often make useful predictions about economic choices.. That is not to say that I don't think individuals can be sexist, I just find it highly implausible that the wage gap can be eplained by patriarchy theory. It would require a solid body of evidence in any case. You would have to show that men have a significant amount of same group preference, that men are more often judged favorably, etc. The evidence for this very scarce as far as I can tell. Makes me think about Larry Summers joking about some economists who would argue that an electricity breakdown would not hurt the economy more than 3% of GDP because the electricity represent 3% of GDP. Just because we don't entirely understands how it work does not mean it's wrong. And for your reasonning there are no evidence at all, and none can be made. By the way I have a master in economy you know.
So we should just believe something for ideological reasons, without evidence instead? Explanations that require widespread irrationality, are not good explanations at all.
|
On December 25 2013 00:11 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 00:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2013 00:03 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 23:51 Mercy13 wrote:On December 24 2013 23:39 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 23:29 WhiteDog wrote:On December 24 2013 23:16 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 22:53 WhiteDog wrote:On December 24 2013 21:43 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 20:40 Sub40APM wrote:
[quote]I would be curious to hear your explanation why despite being legally equal women seem to be underrepresented in a number of elite professions and why their incomes -- even for the same level of education -- stagnate.
In terms of economics it would be preposterous to suggest that equally qualified workers would recieve different wages solely based on their gender. Businesses that choose to employ overpaid men in favor of underpaid women would go out of business in favor of businesses employing only the equally qualified cheap women. The greater demand for the cheap women would create an upwards pressure on wages for women and a downward pressure on the wages of men, resulting in equal pay in equilibirum. The explanation must lie in elsewhere, discrimination can't account for differences in wages. One obvious factor would be the fact that the cost of pregnancy and child rearing responsibility disproportionately lies with female workers, and employers pay part of this cost through maternity leave, decreased productivity and lack of flexibility. The fact that women get pregnant and men don't, and women are most often the primary care giver is atleast in part founded in biology, and only a limited number of policy options are available to correct this difference. For example forcing employers to give as much paternity leave as maternity leave, like in some scandinavian countries. Ecouraging fathers to take more of the child rearing responsibilities is a more difficult problem, and I feel that complete parity can never be achieved, though there certainly has been a move towards greater participation by fathers. For elite professions the disparity can be explained in terms of different inherent preferences and perhaps even abillity. Women on average have a greater preference to work with people, wheras men more often than women prefer to work with things. Furthermore, to achieve the very top of any profession requires something of a single minded preoccupation that one might call an obsession, and I think men are more prone to develop that, whereas women's preoccupaitons might on average be more varied. To support this assertion I offer the fact that autism spectrum syndromes, partly characterized by obsessions for certain patterns, are much more prevalent in men, and a popular explanation for this is the ''male brain hypothesis". Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but I believe this can atleast offer some insight into the differences between men and women in elite professions. Even if I am wrong about some of these things, I still don't believe patriarchy is a useful concept that does offer insight. Perhaps you would be so kind as to offer explanations in terms of patriarhy, so we may decide whether this offers some superior or additional insight. lol Do you believe in that ? Wage has nothing to do with productivity, women are on average paid less because it is a social convention to do so. Pregnancy is the excuse. The proof is that the disparities in salaries are way less for younger generations. Wage having "nothing" to do with productivity is a laughable assertion. I'll take the time to be clearer. The idea that people are paid at marginal productivity is retarded. It's a fraud some economists came up and it's actually a good exemple of a theory that has no empirical ground. Now, for sure, there is an indirect link between individual "productivity" (something that you can't measure) and wage, as education and certifiate cultural capital can be arguments in a negociation or in a conflict, but wage overall are defined by balance of power between various social group - it's something Adam Smith, David Ricardo or Karl Marx all agreed upon by the way. So you believe that wage discrepancies can exist between equally productive workers, based only on sex? I see absolutely no possibility for it, my reasoning is sound, and you have done nothing to discredit it. It holds despite the fact that the models that set w=MPL are too simple to describe the real world, w=MPL is not a necessary condition for my reasoning. Rational actors would not hire more expensive workers, if they can hire cheaper but equally productive workers. And irrational actors would go out of business. Here's your problem. People often don't behave rationally; see behavioral economics. Even if people are rational, they don't make the optimal choice unless they have perfect information. Consider a sexist who is interviewing a man and woman for the same position. The woman is objectively a better candidate, but the interviewer is sexist so he thinks the man is a better candidate and hires him instead. This pattern is repeated across the economy because sexism is real. It's dangerous to talk about economics when you only have a class or two under your belt. I majored in economics, which means I know just enough about the subject to know that I don't know shit about economics. The real world doesn't fit into the neat little graphs that you learn about in introductory economics courses. I will soon have a masters degree in economics. Models that assume rational actors very often make useful predictions about economic choices.. That is not to say that I don't think individuals can be sexist, I just find it highly implausible that the wage gap can be eplained by patriarchy theory. It would require a solid body of evidence in any case. You would have to show that men have a significant amount of same group preference, that men are more often judged favorably, etc. The evidence for this very scarce as far as I can tell. Makes me think about Larry Summers joking about some economists who would argue that an electricity breakdown would not hurt the economy more than 3% of GDP because the electricity represent 3% of GDP. Just because we don't entirely understands how it work does not mean it's wrong. And for your reasonning there are no evidence at all, and none can be made. By the way I have a master in economy you know. So we should just believe something for ideological reasons, without evidence instead? Explanations that require widespread irrationality, are not good explanations at all.
Read Adam Smith, Karl Marx and David Ricardo, there are a lot of explanations in that, you just refuse to see them. It's called society.
|
The study has been replicated with all sorts of racial factors too. White guys are always more likely to get a job (at least in america) against non-white guys with equal qualifications.
Prejudice is a huge factor in employment that is incredibly hard to quantify but imo has massive impact regardless.
|
United States42864 Posts
On December 25 2013 00:11 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 00:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2013 00:03 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 23:51 Mercy13 wrote:On December 24 2013 23:39 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 23:29 WhiteDog wrote:On December 24 2013 23:16 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 22:53 WhiteDog wrote:On December 24 2013 21:43 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 20:40 Sub40APM wrote:
[quote]I would be curious to hear your explanation why despite being legally equal women seem to be underrepresented in a number of elite professions and why their incomes -- even for the same level of education -- stagnate.
In terms of economics it would be preposterous to suggest that equally qualified workers would recieve different wages solely based on their gender. Businesses that choose to employ overpaid men in favor of underpaid women would go out of business in favor of businesses employing only the equally qualified cheap women. The greater demand for the cheap women would create an upwards pressure on wages for women and a downward pressure on the wages of men, resulting in equal pay in equilibirum. The explanation must lie in elsewhere, discrimination can't account for differences in wages. One obvious factor would be the fact that the cost of pregnancy and child rearing responsibility disproportionately lies with female workers, and employers pay part of this cost through maternity leave, decreased productivity and lack of flexibility. The fact that women get pregnant and men don't, and women are most often the primary care giver is atleast in part founded in biology, and only a limited number of policy options are available to correct this difference. For example forcing employers to give as much paternity leave as maternity leave, like in some scandinavian countries. Ecouraging fathers to take more of the child rearing responsibilities is a more difficult problem, and I feel that complete parity can never be achieved, though there certainly has been a move towards greater participation by fathers. For elite professions the disparity can be explained in terms of different inherent preferences and perhaps even abillity. Women on average have a greater preference to work with people, wheras men more often than women prefer to work with things. Furthermore, to achieve the very top of any profession requires something of a single minded preoccupation that one might call an obsession, and I think men are more prone to develop that, whereas women's preoccupaitons might on average be more varied. To support this assertion I offer the fact that autism spectrum syndromes, partly characterized by obsessions for certain patterns, are much more prevalent in men, and a popular explanation for this is the ''male brain hypothesis". Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but I believe this can atleast offer some insight into the differences between men and women in elite professions. Even if I am wrong about some of these things, I still don't believe patriarchy is a useful concept that does offer insight. Perhaps you would be so kind as to offer explanations in terms of patriarhy, so we may decide whether this offers some superior or additional insight. lol Do you believe in that ? Wage has nothing to do with productivity, women are on average paid less because it is a social convention to do so. Pregnancy is the excuse. The proof is that the disparities in salaries are way less for younger generations. Wage having "nothing" to do with productivity is a laughable assertion. I'll take the time to be clearer. The idea that people are paid at marginal productivity is retarded. It's a fraud some economists came up and it's actually a good exemple of a theory that has no empirical ground. Now, for sure, there is an indirect link between individual "productivity" (something that you can't measure) and wage, as education and certifiate cultural capital can be arguments in a negociation or in a conflict, but wage overall are defined by balance of power between various social group - it's something Adam Smith, David Ricardo or Karl Marx all agreed upon by the way. So you believe that wage discrepancies can exist between equally productive workers, based only on sex? I see absolutely no possibility for it, my reasoning is sound, and you have done nothing to discredit it. It holds despite the fact that the models that set w=MPL are too simple to describe the real world, w=MPL is not a necessary condition for my reasoning. Rational actors would not hire more expensive workers, if they can hire cheaper but equally productive workers. And irrational actors would go out of business. Here's your problem. People often don't behave rationally; see behavioral economics. Even if people are rational, they don't make the optimal choice unless they have perfect information. Consider a sexist who is interviewing a man and woman for the same position. The woman is objectively a better candidate, but the interviewer is sexist so he thinks the man is a better candidate and hires him instead. This pattern is repeated across the economy because sexism is real. It's dangerous to talk about economics when you only have a class or two under your belt. I majored in economics, which means I know just enough about the subject to know that I don't know shit about economics. The real world doesn't fit into the neat little graphs that you learn about in introductory economics courses. I will soon have a masters degree in economics. Models that assume rational actors very often make useful predictions about economic choices.. That is not to say that I don't think individuals can be sexist, I just find it highly implausible that the wage gap can be eplained by patriarchy theory. It would require a solid body of evidence in any case. You would have to show that men have a significant amount of same group preference, that men are more often judged favorably, etc. The evidence for this very scarce as far as I can tell. Makes me think about Larry Summers joking about some economists who would argue that an electricity breakdown would not hurt the economy more than 3% of GDP because the electricity represent 3% of GDP. Just because we don't entirely understands how it work does not mean it's wrong. And for your reasonning there are no evidence at all, and none can be made. By the way I have a master in economy you know. So we should just believe something for ideological reasons, without evidence instead? Explanations that require widespread irrationality, are not good explanations at all.
There is a lot of evidence for discriminatory employment practices, the fact that you're blissfully unaware of it doesn't discredit it. Furthermore your belief in rational humans is purely ideological, we're about to celebrate the birth of a guy who wasn't born this time of year by telling our kids that a fat man is going to climb down a chimney and putting trees indoors. And yet you think sexism is too irrational for humans to do.
|
On December 24 2013 23:29 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 23:16 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 22:53 WhiteDog wrote:On December 24 2013 21:43 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 20:40 Sub40APM wrote:On December 24 2013 19:11 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 09:32 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On December 24 2013 08:58 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:53 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:51 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
I don't think anything exist in contemporary society that is worthy of he name patriarchy. then you are sadly mistaken. most likely, you just don't have any properly theoretical conception of what is meant by the term. the patriarchy is just part of our ideology. it is "pouvoir" in the foucauldian sense, it is not some concrete instutition which is the sort of stupid, obvious thing you look for and don't find, it is much more subtle than that. It absolutely exists. Don't let the voguish stupidity of the way most people use the term discount the idea itself. Yeah that is just a bunch of bullshit to me, sorry. If you don't believe the patriarchy exists, consider the examples shown in the rural areas of India, and under Taliban influenced areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. These countries are rife with 14 year olds being sold into marriage, girls schools being closed, straight up gender segregation, and regular terrorism for failing to comply with gender norms. I have not listed all of the systemic legal and cultural rules imposed on women. There are many more there. Can you not grok this concept? When you think of those examples, does a pattern of gender roles not emerge? Men make the rules. Men imposed the rules. And men do this to maintain control over women. Do you not see what is going on there? , which pretty much holds that even though women have equal rights in every way, are still somehow being opressed by some abstraction. What I am disputing is that patriarchy is a useful concept to describe any phenomenon in contemporary society. I would be curious to hear your explanation why despite being legally equal women seem to be underrepresented in a number of elite professions and why their incomes -- even for the same level of education -- stagnate. In terms of economics it would be preposterous to suggest that equally qualified workers would recieve different wages solely based on their gender. Businesses that choose to employ overpaid men in favor of underpaid women would go out of business in favor of businesses employing only the equally qualified cheap women. The greater demand for the cheap women would create an upwards pressure on wages for women and a downward pressure on the wages of men, resulting in equal pay in equilibirum. The explanation must lie in elsewhere, discrimination can't account for differences in wages. One obvious factor would be the fact that the cost of pregnancy and child rearing responsibility disproportionately lies with female workers, and employers pay part of this cost through maternity leave, decreased productivity and lack of flexibility. The fact that women get pregnant and men don't, and women are most often the primary care giver is atleast in part founded in biology, and only a limited number of policy options are available to correct this difference. For example forcing employers to give as much paternity leave as maternity leave, like in some scandinavian countries. Ecouraging fathers to take more of the child rearing responsibilities is a more difficult problem, and I feel that complete parity can never be achieved, though there certainly has been a move towards greater participation by fathers. For elite professions the disparity can be explained in terms of different inherent preferences and perhaps even abillity. Women on average have a greater preference to work with people, wheras men more often than women prefer to work with things. Furthermore, to achieve the very top of any profession requires something of a single minded preoccupation that one might call an obsession, and I think men are more prone to develop that, whereas women's preoccupaitons might on average be more varied. To support this assertion I offer the fact that autism spectrum syndromes, partly characterized by obsessions for certain patterns, are much more prevalent in men, and a popular explanation for this is the ''male brain hypothesis". Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but I believe this can atleast offer some insight into the differences between men and women in elite professions. Even if I am wrong about some of these things, I still don't believe patriarchy is a useful concept that does offer insight. Perhaps you would be so kind as to offer explanations in terms of patriarhy, so we may decide whether this offers some superior or additional insight. lol Do you believe in that ? Wage has nothing to do with productivity, women are on average paid less because it is a social convention to do so. Pregnancy is the excuse. The proof is that the disparities in salaries are way less for younger generations. Wage having "nothing" to do with productivity is a laughable assertion. I'll take the time to be clearer. The idea that people are paid at marginal productivity is retarded. It's a fraud some economists came up and it's actually a good exemple of a theory that has no empirical ground. Now, for sure, there is an indirect link between individual "productivity" (something that you can't measure) and wage, as education and certifiate cultural capital can be arguments in a negociation or in a conflict, but wage overall are defined by balance of power between various social group - it's something Adam Smith, David Ricardo or Karl Marx all agreed upon (more or less) by the way.
Productivity can get you in the ballpark for wage / employment levels and give you a good lens for viewing firm decision making. So I wouldn't dismiss that aspect entirely.
As far as the men vs women wage differences go, as Mercy13 pointed out, observable differences wipe away the majority of the wage gap. I wouldn't be surprised if further observations eventually reduce the gap closer to zero, though I wouldn't expect the gap to go completely to zero. Things are never quite that perfect.
|
On December 24 2013 23:39 Crushinator wrote:
So you believe that wage discrepancies can exist between equally productive workers, based only on sex? I see absolutely no possibility for it, my reasoning is sound, and you have done nothing to discredit it.
Your reasoning doesn't matter, there's this thing called reality which disproves what your are saying. I'll just quote some crap from Wikpedia here, you can look up the bazillion studies which basically all come to the same conclusion yourself.
"For instance, David R. Hekman and colleagues (2009) found that men receive significantly higher customer satisfaction scores than equally well-performing women. Hekman et al. (2009) found that customers who viewed videos featuring a female and a male actor playing the role of an employee helping a customer were 19% more satisfied with the male employee's performance and also were more satisfied with the store's cleanliness and appearance. This was despite the fact that the actors performed identically, read the same script, and were in exactly the same location with identical camera angles and lighting. Moreover, 38% of the customers were women, indicating that even women and minority raters are susceptible to systematic gender biases. "
"[...]gap remains unchanged.[17] Cornell University economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn stated that while the overall size of the wage gap has decreased somewhat over time, the proportion of the gap that is unexplained by human capital variables is increasing.[18]
Using Current Population Survey (CPS) data for 1979 and 1995 and controlling for education, experience, personal characteristics, parental status, city and region, occupation, industry, government employment, and part-time status, Yale University economics professor Joseph G. Altonji and the United States Secretary of Commerce Rebecca M. Blank found that only about 27% of the gender wage gap in each year is explained by differences in such characteristics.[19]"
"Perceptions of wage entitlement differ between women and men such that men are more likely to feel worthy of higher pay.] while women's sense of wage entitlement is depressed.] Women's beliefs about their relatively lower worth and their depressed wage entitlement reflects their lower social status"
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
